Brexit Begins

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

Thanks for the help, jackass

[Hazir]

Twitter Link

Thanks for the help, jackass

Yeah, like we needed a reminder you can't trust back stabbers.

[Khendraja'aro]

No you didn't.

You literally parroted repeatedly "We were overruled regularly! Waaaah!"

When in fact the percentage of votings against you were in the single-digit percentages.

[Khendraja'aro]

Yeah, like we needed a reminder you can't trust back stabbers.

Cue Rand's "Why should future governments be bound by previous agreements?" horseshit.

[Flixy]

So, I read some details about the deal in the newspaper this morning. Really looks to me like the EU got almost everything they wanted and UK dropped almost all its demands. They will pay, EU courts continue to have done influence, they will pay pensions and child support, the procedure for EU citizens will not be like they wanted. Only they don't have to pay for moving the bank and medicine authorities.

If that's the result from what you call a strong position for the UK I'm curious what you'd get from a weak position..

[Aimless]

I expect their negotiation strategy was inspired by homeopathy.

[RandBlade]

Twitter Link

Thanks for the help, jackass

That's the whole point of Brexit is to return control to our the Parliament our electorate votes for

Though much of the deal will be history once ratified and I can't imagine any reasonable government wanting to reopen negotiations with the EU on this.

You literally parroted repeatedly "We were overruled regularly! Waaaah!"

When in fact the percentage of votings against you were in the single-digit percentages.

Your ignorance is graphically on display. Since when is over 12% "single digits"?

http://ukandeu.ac.uk/explainers/does...-of-ministers/

So, I read some details about the deal in the newspaper this morning. Really looks to me like the EU got almost everything they wanted and UK dropped almost all its demands. They will pay, EU courts continue to have done influence, they will pay pensions and child support, the procedure for EU citizens will not be like they wanted. Only they don't have to pay for moving the bank and medicine authorities.

If that's the result from what you call a strong position for the UK I'm curious what you'd get from a weak position..

The UK always said we would pay our obligations, its spread over many years rather than an up-front lump sum as some had suggested and at approximately £35bn is well below some figures that were bandied about like €100bn.

The procedure for EU citizens etc is not what anybody started off demanding, it is a compromise. A reasonable one in my eyes.

[RandBlade]

It's hilarious how we've gone from "go whistle" to "The UK will of course honour her obligations", when mere months ago there were apparently no obligations, only bargaining chips.

Taking quotes out of context I see. "Go whistle" was said to reports of €100bn being demanded. We always said we'd honour our obligations. But of course in any negotiation people don't actually expect to get their opening gambits accepted. The UK was not going to walk away from our liabilities, the EU was not seriously expecting €100bn and go whistle was entirely appropriate response to that.

Sadly, FoM for Brits living in Europe looks uncertain atm.

Yes the EU have said that's to be determined in Phase II.

I like the agreement.

Good because I do too. That's what a deal should be, something for everyone.

[Khendraja'aro]

That's the whole point of Brexit is to return control to our the Parliament our electorate votes for

You realize that if you reneg on the agreements you'll be basically the Pariah of all states? Because not a single country will ever trust you again after pulling such a stunt.

Oh, and congrats. 12%. Boohhoooooooo! Yeah, that's SUCH a big number. "Regularly", my ass. It's probably also only due to the fact that you were being needlessly confrontational.

Then again, your country has shown that you can't trust them with anything these days. I for my part hope you crash and burn.

[RandBlade]

Nobody is suggesting we reneg on agreements. Changing agreements by mutual consent or exercising exit clauses is not reneging on anything.

Yes 12% is a massive number, especially when you discount all the unanimous agreements because something is unobjectionable or technical.

I for my part wish everyone well in the future. Seems like you're still stuck in the second stage of grief over our rejecting the union you wanted. That says more about you than me.

[Aimless]

The UK always said we would pay our obligations

My ass it did.

approximately £35bn is well below some figures that were bandied about like €100bn.

£35bn is the lower bound of a low-ball estimate. It's not a credible estimate at the moment.

The procedure for EU citizens etc is not what anybody started off demanding, it is a compromise. A reasonable one in my eyes.

I think if you tally the concessions and "compromises" on each side--honestly--you'll see the truth about the phase 1 negotiations.

[RandBlade]

My ass it did.

Show a source where we said we weren't going to pay a penny please? Not the ravings of a backbencher or campaigner but someone credible.

£35bn is the lower bound of a low-ball estimate. It's not a credible estimate at the moment.

£35bn-£39bn I've read is the estimated range with projections it should be at the lower end but even at the upper end £39bn is nowhere near €100bn.

I think if you tally the concessions and "compromises" on each side--honestly--you'll see the truth about the phase 1 negotiations.

That both sides have moved and we are not going to be where we were when we started? Which is the point.

Diverting from the status quo is always harder to negotiate (inertia is a powerful force) but that doesn't mean it's the wrong thing to do.

[Aimless]

Not the ravings of a backbencher or campaigner but someone credible.

I can't offer that, I can only offer the exact opposite:

Gogo regarding payments I think a reasonable comparison is discussions that took place with regards to Scottish Independence. Would I expect them to be liable for their fair share of existing liabilities and debts? And their fair share of assets? Of course. Things like the existing debt and pensions etc.

But for future projects including ongoing projects? No that ends at separation. We are currently having major upgrades to the M6 and M60 and M62 near where I live. Should the Scots be liable for that after separation? Should the English be liable for upgrades to the Forth Bridge after separation? No. Even if these projects were carefully costed before separation the communality of the project ends when the union does. Just as even if a project commenced before accession of a new member they still take on their fair share upon becoming a member.

Projects are communal until/from the point of separation/merger.

Did accession states receive immunity from being liable for future obligations already agreed before they joined? Or did they take up their share of liability once they joined?

You want to be paid for a cake before we even talk about baking it let alone eating it. When you're ready to talk, we are too but there is no legal basis for this so-called divorce bill [...]

You were so used to taking advantage of our munificence that there will be a gaping black hole in your finances caused by our departure. You want us to agree with no deal in return to fill in that black hole to remove a headache from your side. That is not going to happen. If you have something worth it to us then we can talk about money but until then there's nothing more to talk about. Try giving a reason why we should be generous in giving you money for nothing in return?

No it doesn't in the slightest.

Barnier is upset we aren't simply agreeing to pay a large sum to the EU. Oh diddums we don't owe one.

[...]

The British government should continue doing what it is. Clever developments on trade etc while Barnier stonewalls. Once time is running out the only option on the table will be our one we have developed.

Shows what you think about honouring your obligations, namely that you believed you basically had no obligations to honour beyond Brexit day, or, at most, that your obligations were minor.

This illustrates quite nicely the great chasm between your expectations and reality, and your slow path towards acceptance:

If you had your ducks in a row there wouldn't be this hysteria trying to put a looming black hole in your budget onto the UK's shoulders.

[...]

As for contracts, we're honouring ours in full. We signed a contract to be in a club with a two year exit clause. We have invoked our two year exit clause. Now the clock is ticking and once the two years are up we are out and that is that. No more payments to you.

I think the most sensible way for the UK to approach these negotiations once May has won her election mandate is to say that the EU does indeed own all assets and owns all liabilities too. The UK will take on assets and liabilities that are based in the UK, like UK pensioners and will make continued payments to the EU for a three year transition period of 50% of our current net post-rebate obligations. That gives you approximately €20bn towards your black hole. In exchange for that we get continued unfettered access to the market (with continued free movement obligations etc) but no voting rights etc during that period while a final trade deal is agreed, with an expectation to get a reciprocal free trade Treaty that covers goods and services without free movement or voting etc and we will then pay on a case by case basis for anything we are a part of that incurs costs like Erasmus etc. Take it or leave it if you want Europe.

We have compromised on multiple areas and have made generous offers like ensuring that we take the financial burden of us leaving despite having no obligation to do so.

[...]

€40bn as an exit fee would be ludicrously generous it is 4 years worth of payments. If that is rejected then yes it is the EU eminently being unreasonable.

£35bn-£39bn I've read is the estimated range with projections it should be at the lower end but even at the upper end £39bn is nowhere near €100bn.

This is the UK's low-ball estimate. It says very little about reality. I see you're continuing the tried-and-true Brexiter strategy of enthusiastic strawmanning but the credible estimates of the net payment discussed at the time--calculated by think-tanks and serious news sources--ranged from ca 40bn EUR at the low end to 60bn EUR at the higher end. These estimates were not accepted by Brexiters because they did not at the time accept the notion of an exit bill to begin with.

[RandBlade]

I can't offer that, I can only offer the exact opposite:

Shows what you think about honouring your obligations, namely that you believed you basically had no obligations to honour beyond Brexit day, or, at most, that your obligations were minor.

Legally yes though I said all along that we would and should make payments. I never claimed though that we had no obligations to honour beyond Brexit day, quite the opposite. See I said that I would expect us "to be liable for their fair share of existing liabilities and debts? And their fair share of assets? Of course. Things like the existing debt and pensions etc." The largest part of the Brexit bill was things like reste a liquider which is basically debt. A lot of future spending that or things like moving the organisations etc which were mooted to inflate the figure to €100bn have not been agreed.

This illustrates quite nicely the great chasm between your expectations and reality, and your slow path towards acceptance:

Worth noting that was before our election and May's dismally awful election campaign (which I criticised at the time) meant that far from getting a landslide mandate as the polls were forecasting actually ended up throwing away Cameron's majority. Which I said immediately weakened us in the negotiations.

This is the UK's low-ball estimate. It says very little about reality. I see you're continuing the tried-and-true Brexiter strategy of enthusiastic strawmanning but the credible estimates of the net payment discussed at the time--calculated by think-tanks and serious news sources--ranged from ca 40bn EUR at the low end to 60bn EUR at the higher end. These estimates were not accepted by Brexiters because they did not at the time accept the notion of an exit bill to begin with.

It's worth noting that the 40bn I suggested would be proposed was not rejected. Fail to see how that quote puts me out of touch with reality.

On the day that Boris agreed with somebody else's "go whistle" quote the suggestion in serious news media (the Financial Times and The Guardian) had inflated up to €100bn. Final figure is closer to zero than it is to that nonsense!

[gogobongopop]

Twitter Link

I didn't know this.

[Timbuk2]

I didn't either.

[Timbuk2]

... and while the UK continues its castration ...

EU agrees biggest free trade deal with Japan
The European Union and Japan have agreed terms for a free trade deal set to create the world's biggest open economic area.
The deal - the largest struck by the EU - is expected to liberalise almost all trade between the bloc and the world's third-largest economy.

[Aimless]

... and while the UK continues its castration ...

EU agrees biggest free trade deal with Japan
The European Union and Japan have agreed terms for a free trade deal set to create the world's biggest open economic area.
The deal - the largest struck by the EU - is expected to liberalise almost all trade between the bloc and the world's third-largest economy.

See above! Also hoping to make progress on negotiations with Mercosur.


On a less cheerful note, Brexidiots just don't know how to shut up. Davis, Gove, Starmer, all working hard to publicly undermine the deal before the vote on "sufficient progress" takes place, increasing the likelihood of having the vote go against the UK or, at best, sabotaging the phase 2 negotiations right from the outset. The EU and the UK's negotiators know full well what has been agreed. These public comments from prominent figures in UK politics erode what little credibility the UK has left with the EU. Shut these idiots up before they fuck you over permanently.

[RandBlade]

I didn't know this.

I did. It's one frequently cited as controversial along with other winners like Aung San Suu Kyi, Yasser Arafat and Henry Kissinger etc

[gogobongopop]

Yes I have done. Also don't forget that I personally was in favour of EU citizenship, I loved the idea of being able to travel freely across Europe and I hope a sensible path is worked out to see that continue.

But I don't see why this feels unfair. Ireland has had a special relationship with the UK that predates the EEC. It predates WWII. Those born in Ulster being able to get British and Irish citizenship is not new and is not related to Brexit. It is not related to today's deal. That's like complaining that the French still have EU citizenship rights. It's not "moving forward" its a change, it is simply the status quo continuing and why shouldn't it? Should we seek to deprive those born their of their birthright that has nothing to do with us?

Until we are told otherwise, children born in England, Scotland and Wales will lose the right to apply for a passport that conveys EU citizenship. Northern-Irish children will not. I consider that unfair to those children in England, Scotland and Wales.

[RandBlade]

How is it unfair? Children born in England, Scotland and Wales will be born in a nation that has democratically chosen to leave the EU so why should they get EU citizenship?

Children born in Northern Ireland won't get EU citizenship from the UK either. They will if they take up dual-nationality or solely Irish citizenship same as any other dual-national can. My wife is dual-national British/South African. Our children could theoretically claim South African citizenship, is that unfair on other children born here that can't?

[gogobongopop]

Bullshit.

When did the government of the EU last change due to an election and what were the major changes debated at the election and how did they change?

It's not bullshit at all.

The EU doesn't have a government like we do - you know that and your question a.) isn't comparable and b.) isn't what necessarily defines a democracy.

Is the EU system perfect? No.

Is ours? No. Whilst the un-elected House of Lords exists (who consistently reject and amend legislation (http://www.ucl.ac.uk/constitution-un.../lords-defeats)), and whilst we have a system which makes it nigh on impossible for anything other than two main parties to ever be in power, I stand firm in my belief that the EU is extremely democratic and a strong case can be made to say more so than the UK.

[RandBlade]

The EU does have a quasi-government like we do, the Comission is its equivalent of the Cabinet. Its not elected like ours though.

The Lords acts as a revising chamber for past experts to revise the elected chambers legislation. They lack the power to reject or amend legislation unilaterally though. The Parliament Act as well as things like the Salisbury Doctrine mean that the elected chamber can overrule the Lords. As for the system, if people choose to vote for other than the two main parties then dramatic changes can happen - see Scotland 2015 for instance. There is no equivalence in the EU were the voters are mere pawns to be ignored.

[gogobongopop]

How is it unfair? Children born in England, Scotland and Wales will be born in a nation that has democratically chosen to leave the EU so why should they get EU citizenship?

Children born in Northern Ireland won't get EU citizenship from the UK either. They will if they take up dual-nationality or solely Irish citizenship same as any other dual-national can. My wife is dual-national British/South African. Our children could theoretically claim South African citizenship, is that unfair on other children born here that can't?

Ok, I see the trouble we're having.

Fair/Unfair aren't objective terms. They mean different things to different people. You appear to me as if you're unable to see things from any other viewpoint other than your own. A lack of empathy, if I may be so bold.

I consider it unfair because I am losing those rights, and so will my children and grandchildren. Arguably perhaps - their "birthrights" (a term you've just used). I consider it unfair because those rights are being taken away from me because of an advisory referendum which never should have been called in the first place (because of the level of public ignorance on such a hugely complex issue), based upon a campaign of hate, lies and fear (from the leave side) - where the results literally couldn't have been any closer.

It's unfair because I've never, ever heard a compelling case to leave from anybody. It's unfair because we haven't done a proper impact assessment and due-diligence on the outcome of leaving. It's unfair because whilst we voted for TM as our prime minister, we didn't vote to have David Davies leading the negotiations and making a complete fool of himself, the rest of the nation, and mislead parliament.

It's unfair because close friends and family have already lost jobs as a result. It's unfair because the cost of my weekly shopping has gone up. It's unfair because the outlook on the UK economy is so pathetic, which hits my wage growth and my living standards.

It's unfair because all of this was completely unnecessary.

I haven't even scratched the surface. I could literally go on for days about how unfair I consider this all is to be on me and my children.

[gogobongopop]

The EU does have a quasi-government like we do, the Comission is its equivalent of the Cabinet. Its not elected like ours though.

The Lords acts as a revising chamber for past experts to revise the elected chambers legislation. They lack the power to reject or amend legislation unilaterally though. The Parliament Act as well as things like the Salisbury Doctrine mean that the elected chamber can overrule the Lords. As for the system, if people choose to vote for other than the two main parties then dramatic changes can happen - see Scotland 2015 for instance. There is no equivalence in the EU were the voters are mere pawns to be ignored.

We elect MPs. We don't chose our cabinet. I didn't vote for BoJo to represent me across the world, or David Davies to lead our Brexit negotiations. That's a unilateral call by the PM. Is that democracy?

Is Alan Sugar a "past expert"?

[RandBlade]

I do understand and no offense but I think I see your upset clearer than you do. You're angry and unhappy so are displaying displacement here.

The issue is that you're not happy with the result of the vote. You're not happy with its aftermath. You're not happy with its consequences.

But the issue is that the UK is exiting not Northern Ireland. If the Republic of Ireland had said post referendum "if the UK is leaving then we are too" and so all those in Ireland including Northern Ireland were also losing EU citizenship would that address any of the reasons you're unhappy? I don't think it would. We'd still be heading out, you'd still be unhappy.

That the Northern Irish get Republic of Ireland citizenship isn't underpinning any of your complaints. Why you think is unfair is that the majority of this country didn't agree with you.

[gogobongopop]

If the Republic of Ireland had said post referendum "if the UK is leaving then we are too" and so all those in Ireland including Northern Ireland were also losing EU citizenship would that address any of the reasons you're unhappy? I don't think it would.

Yes it would. It would address one of my issues, which is that everyone in the UK should be treated equally when it comes to access to EU citizenship.

Why you think is unfair is that the majority of this country didn't agree with you.

I just told you some of reasons I feel this is unfair. That wasn't one of them.

I appreciate your efforts to understand my concerns, but I'm afraid you don't see them as clearly as I do at all.

[RandBlade]

Yes it would. It would address one of my issues, which is that everyone in the UK should be treated equally when it comes to access to EU citizenship.

Everyone in the UK is going to be treated equally when it comes to access to EU citizenship: you don't get it from your British citizenship, but as we respect dual-nationality it's possible to get it from another nationality if that's available to you. I've got a colleague who was born in East Germany and now has dual-nationality - do you think we should strip her of her German citizenship to make things more equitable to you?

[Aimless]

Twitter Link

In case there was any doubt about Davis's 1. ignorance, and 2. intention to honor the UK's obligations.

[RandBlade]

Davis intends to get a deal and thus honour the UK's obligations.